Pages

Saturday, May 24, 2014

Flame
retardants have been in the news recently. First there was news of a studyfinding flame retardant chemicals to be prevalent inside preschools and day
care centers. Researchers examined the air and dust inside 40 child care
centers, including those in urban, rural and agricultural areas. They tested
for 18 types of flame retardants. including those in two different chemical categories.
Both types were found in 100% of the collected dust samples. As I wrote in a previous post on flame retardants,
the chemicals have been linked to a wide range of serious health effects.

The second
piece of news comes from an article in the Chicago Tribunewhich reports that a doctor who testified in support of flame retardants has
given up his medical license after being accused of fabricating stories of
children burned in furniture fires. The story comes on the heels of an excellent series of reportswritten over the past several years which describe “a decades-long campaign of
deception that has loaded the furniture and electronics in American homes with
pounds of toxic chemicals linked to cancer, neurological deficits,
developmental problems and impaired fertility.”

The ongoing flame
retardant saga is a microcosm of the problem of unregulated, harmful, and
ubiquitous chemicals that fill our world. Here’s some of what we know.

Organizations with benign-sounding
names are often not what they seem. In their quest to create a demand for
their product, manufacturers of flame retardants used a well-known tactic
and created a front group known as Citizens for Fire Safety. The Tribune
reported that the group billed itself as a coalition of fire
professionals, doctors, educators, and others, but that public records
showed it to be a trade association with three members: the three largest
manufacturers of flame retardants. The website Safer States lists the American Chemistry Council and the Toy Industry Association as
other chemical industry front groups. An eye-opening article called
Multiple Chemical Sensitivities Under Siege lists the trade organizations Responsible Industry for a Sound Environment
and the Environmental Sensitivities Research Institute as well-funded and
active groups fighting against the recognition of chemical illness.

Expert testimony may come from
people who are more biased than they appear. The Tribune reports that when
he testified in favor of flame retardants, David Heimbach presented himself as simply a concerned doctor, but that he was actually paid $240,000.

Experts who testify on behalf of
chemical companies may not always tell the truth. Heimbach admitted that
he told "an anecdotal story rather than anything which I would say
was absolutely true under oath, because I wasn't under oath."

Written communication can be
equally misleading and deceitful. Citizens for Fire Safety sent a letter
to fire chiefs on behalf of “those of us in the fire safety
profession.” The letter’s author,
however, was a public relations consultant.

Whether chemicals actually do what
they are supposed to do is often a debatable issue. The Tribune notes that
the chemical industry often uses a particular government study as proof
that flame retardants save lives, but that the study’s lead author says
that his findings have been distorted and used “in ways that are improper
and untruthful.” He notes that household furniture generally contains
enough fire retardants to threaten health but not enough to provide
meaningful fire protection, a situation he calls "the worst of both
possible worlds.” Use of the
antibacterial ingredient triclosan is similar. Another Chicago Tribune story (I’m becoming a fan of theirs) notes that advisory committees for the
American Medical Association and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
state that there is no evidence that washing hands with soap containing
triclosan or other anti-microbials provides any health advantages over washing with regular soap and water. The article quotes a scientist with the Natural
Resources Defense Council who says, "Triclosan is what we call a
stupid use of a chemical. It doesn't work, it's not safe and it is not
being regulated."

Problematic chemicals that are
removed from products may reappear later or be replaced by equally
problematic ones. The flame retardant known as chlorinated tris has been
linked to cancer and was voluntarily removed from children’s pajamas
decades ago. However, when problems
with the flame retardant penta emerged and it was no longer
available for use in furniture products, chlorinated tris came back to partially
take its place. Another flame retardant taking penta’s place is Firemaster
550 and, unsurprisingly, it is linked to a growing number of health
problems.

Around and
around we go. We need meaningful chemical regulation and those of us
who care about the issue need to make our voices heard.

Sunday, May 4, 2014

I've previously written about the
woefully inadequate Toxic Substances Control Act, in effect since the 1970s, and
about efforts to update it. Last year, the Safe Chemicals Act was introduced in
the Senate, but failed to gain bipartisan support. A bipartisan bill known as
the Chemical Safety Improvement Act was then proposed. Public health and environmental
groups have been divided in their opinion of whether the bill is strong enough
in its current form to promote.

Now a bill has been introduced in
the House. It's known as the Chemicals in Commerce Act (CICA) and many groups
are characterizing it as a step backwards rather than forward. Noted problems
include those related to setting health standards, prioritizing problematic chemicals,
and enforcing deadlines and minimum requirements for action. Opposition is
coming not only from health and environmental groups, but also from a coalition
of states that oppose the bill because current state authority to regulate
chemicals would be undermined and largely eliminated.

The regulation of chemicals is often
framed as a fight between health and economic interests. As a recent Huffington Post articlereports, however, problems
associated with toxic exposures have an associated financial cost. The article
notes that a 2011 study found that toxic chemicals and air pollutants cost
$76.6 billion in lost working hours, reduced IQ points, and children’s health
care. The study included only a fraction of possible concerns. It didn’t,
for example, look at childhood obesity related to exposure to bisphenol A,
which is estimated to cost the economy $1.49 billion.

If you'd like to add your voice to
those calling for meaningful reform and expressing disappointment in the
Chemicals in Commerce Act, the Center for Environmental Health has provided a
way for people to easily contact their representatives about the issue. There's also an online petition
that can be signed on the website of the organization Safer Chemicals: Healthy Families.

It would be nice if regulations were
in place that required manufacturers to prove products safe before putting them
on the market and making it easy to remove them once problems surfaced. Since that doesn’t exist, each of us must continue to do our
homework and to purchase products with the health of ourselves, our families,
and our fellow human beings in mind.

About Me

My family spent most of the 1990s serving in Peru as missionaries. During our time of service, my health deteriorated to the point that I could no longer continue to live there. Small exposures to a wide range of chemical triggers caused many symptoms, including debilitating pain. The condition is known as MCS (Multiple Chemical Sensitivity). I was also eventually diagnosed with Lyme Disease and mold poisoning.
Part of the missionary task is identifying unreached people groups. After returning to the states and becoming part of the MCS world, I came to see that people with MCS belong in that category. We’re largely unseen, but there are a significant and growing number of us and we’re shut out of most churches and Christian gatherings.
MCS has taught me a lot of lessons about the chemical hazards in common, everyday products and I’d like other people not to have to learn those lessons the hard way, like I did. I’d like Christians to take the issue seriously, both for their own sakes, and the sakes of others who are currently shut out of most churches because of product choices others make. This issue matters greatly to those of us with MCS. I think it matters to God, too.